The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech.
My assertion is that this is an affront to the Constitution. I thought I made that clear, but if not, SCOTUS ruling that a law abridging the freedom of speech is Constitutional is blatantly and obviously wrong, until an amendment is passed changing the 1st, which is why we have an amendment process.
To be clear, the law against "fire in a movie theater" hold criminal information that is blatantly 1) dangerous and, more importantly 2) known to be false.
Very specifically this SCOTUS opinion leaves alone speech that is 1) dangerous and 2) opinion or fact and not know to be false. So yelling "fire!" In a theater actually on fire - even though that information can be dangerous (set off a panic) is not illegal.
I'm not necessarily against holding someone accountable for the results of their speech (conversations about personal responsibility aside) but then it's not the speech that's illegal.
I'm not necessarily against holding someone accountable for the results of their speech (conversations about personal responsibility aside) but then it's not the speech that's illegal.
aptly explained, and food for thought. My appreciations.
Comments
The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech.
My assertion is that this is an affront to the Constitution. I thought I made that clear, but if not, SCOTUS ruling that a law abridging the freedom of speech is Constitutional is blatantly and obviously wrong, until an amendment is passed changing the 1st, which is why we have an amendment process.
Do you support a citizen's right to yell "fire!" in a crowded building or theater?
Yes.
To be clear, the law against "fire in a movie theater" hold criminal information that is blatantly 1) dangerous and, more importantly 2) known to be false.
Very specifically this SCOTUS opinion leaves alone speech that is 1) dangerous and 2) opinion or fact and not know to be false. So yelling "fire!" In a theater actually on fire - even though that information can be dangerous (set off a panic) is not illegal.
I'm not necessarily against holding someone accountable for the results of their speech (conversations about personal responsibility aside) but then it's not the speech that's illegal.
aptly explained, and food for thought. My appreciations.